TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

Unauthorised Use of ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ Marks by Defendants Constitute Infringement and Passing Off, Marks Declared Well-Known” – Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has declared the marks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ as well-known trademarks, granting significant relief to Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. in their suit against Berachah Sales Corporation & Ors. Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed that the unauthorized use of these marks by the defendants constituted infringement and passing off, thereby granting a permanent injunction against the defendants.

The Court focused on the infringement of trademarks, observing that the unauthorized usage of Haldiram's registered trademarks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ by the defendants for identical services satisfied the triple identity test, establishing infringement.

Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. alleged that the defendants were infringing upon their registered trademarks and passing off their products as those of Haldiram’s. The issue revolved around the unauthorized use of the ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ marks by the defendants on a variety of food products and related materials.

Infringement Analysis: The Court noted the long usage and recognition of the ‘HALDIRAM’ marks, underscoring that allowing the defendants to use similar marks would severely impinge upon Haldiram's rights.

Well-known Trademark Declaration: The Court declared ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ as well-known trademarks, considering their duration, extent of use, advertising, and substantial recognition.

Damages Assessment: Haldiram was awarded damages of Rs. 50 lakhs for the infringement by the defendants, with an emphasis on compensatory and exemplary damages due to the significant impact on Haldiram’s reputation.

Costs Awarded: The Court also awarded costs of Rs. 2 lakhs to Haldiram, taking into account their legal expenses and efforts in protecting their trademarks.

Decision: Granting a decree of permanent injunction, the Court restrained the defendants from using the ‘HALDIRAM’, ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’, or any deceptively similar marks. The well-known status of the trademarks ‘HALDIRAM’ and ‘HALDIRAM BHUJIAWALA’ was affirmed, providing broader protection against misuse.

Date of Decision: April 2, 2024

HALDIRAM INDIA PVT. LTD vs BERACHAH SALES CORPORATION & ORS

Latest Legal News